Microsoft Word - 1081-4996-3-LE_final.doc 1 Volume 16, Number 1 April 26, 2013 ISSN 1099-839X Educational Poverties in Alaska: Teachers’ Perspectives Anne Jones and Charles Salinas University of Alaska Southeast In this mixed-methods study, we explore deprivations of educational entitlements as an example of poverty. We include among educational entitlements: appropriate teacher attitudes, appropriate educational materials and instructional strategies, relevant curriculums, and school and classroom structures that support the familial and cultural experiences of the children in them. Through interviews, surveys, and an examination of participant demographics, we explore Alaska teachers’ identification of instances of educational deprivations in their classrooms and schools and the relationship between identified deprivations and their personal and professional attitudes toward diversity and social justice. From the point of view of the Alaska Native teachers in this study, their goal of preparing students to succeed in both their Native and White cultures is made more difficult because of the educational deprivations in their classrooms. This work has implications for many settings, as teachers struggle to keep fidelity with established norms and goals while providing the most appropriate opportunities for their students. Keywords: Alaska native, educational poverties, attitudes, diversity, social justice This study asks questions about an idea, educational poverty, that has lost its place in the education dialogue. As the discussion about student achievement continues to focus on testing, the important concept of educational poverty must be included in this dialogue. Teacher educators have focused on the attitudes and pedagogical practices of teachers as contributing positively and negatively to student achievement (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sleeter, 2001; Zeichner, 2002). While multicultural education researchers and curriculum theorists have focused on the nature of the curriculum and the structures of schools as sources of deprivation for some children (Apple, 1990; Banks, 2004; Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995; Gay, 2004; Grant, 2003; Popkewitz, 1990). We explore a concept we call ‘educational deprivations’ from both perspectives, using specific instances of deprivations as our context. Through interviews and surveys, we explore Alaskan teachers’ identification of instances of educational deprivations in their classrooms and schools and the relationship between identified deprivations and their personal and professional attitudes toward diversity and social justice. We take a critical perspective because we believe these deprivations are manifestation of power and privilege. There is good reason for applying critical social theory to education research; for most people it is in the experience of education and becoming educated that social structures distribute power, knowledge, and opportunity. We position this study within critical social theory; particularly social justice education, because this perspective allows the asking of different questions about social injustices; in this case the distribution of attributes and resources and the impact of teacher attitudes. Articulated in terms of common values and goals as they pertain to education, a critical perspective will focus on equity, respect for human dignity across all cultures, equality of opportunity, and awareness of power and privilege (Levinson, 2011). We also base this work on the precepts laid out by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965: equality (i.e. equal opportunity), participation, and recognition. We accept Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 2 the precepts of the ESEA (1965); that all children are entitled to an education that includes equal opportunity, participation, and recognition. We include among this group of educational entitlements: appropriate teacher attitudes, suitable educational materials and instructional strategies, relevant curriculums, and school and classroom structures that support the familial and cultural experiences of the children in them. Review of the Literature Teacher Attitudes A significant body of research indicates teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about students have a considerable influence on student learning and development (Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000). Attitudes influence how and what teachers teach (Kagan, 1992), and how they interpret and apply ideas about multiculturalism (Sleeter, 1992). What teachers perceive, believe, and think can improve or damage students’ educational experiences (Nel, 1992). Social psychological research has long confirmed that attitudes influence what we notice, how we interpret information, and what we remember (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). In a summary of the National Study of American Indian Education that included four different measures of attitudes and perceptions on the issue of assimilation, Dehyle and Swisher (1997) found the majority of Native American and Alaskan Native teachers interviewed tended to take the "man of two cultures" position. Native American and Alaska Native teachers in their study maintained that Native Americans and Alaska Natives should acquire skills and attitudes required for success in society, but they should also maintain their culture (Dehyle & Swisher, 1997). Curriculum and Instruction Nearly all students benefit from curriculum and instruction that focus on meaning, problem solving, logical thinking, and is engaging (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Although the literature does not reveal a consensus definition of effective teaching, Rilke and Sharpe (2008) review the literature and conclude that effective teaching must facilitate student learning and have a positive impact on student achievement. Unfortunately, in many classrooms, the curricular norm is a set of academic standards and prescribed instructional pacing (Tomlinson, 2000), bereft of opportunity for teachers to differentiate learning for groups or individuals. To the works of Foster (1995), Gay (2000), and Hollins (1996), demonstrate that explicit knowledge about students’ cultures (by the teacher) is “imperative” to diverse students’ learning needs and to creating learning experiences that are relevant. This body of research suggests that when academic learning is relevant for students, and when diverse students learn through their own cultural and experiential filters, they show higher interest and learn more easily. Alaska Native students exhibit distinctive learning patterns that they bring to the academic setting (Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1999); cultural traditions, language, behaviors, dress, learning styles, movement, and perspectives. Because of these differences, Alaska Native children may experience the kind of cultural discontinuity from school described among African American children by Irvine-Jordan (1991). Irvine-Jordan explains that this cultural discontinuity can produce apathy, academic disengagement, and school discontent evidenced by the well-documented academic achievement gap. The achievement gap has led many scholars to examine the cultural relevancy of the curriculum as a way to increase achievement and school connectedness for diverse learners (Asante, 1992; Banks, 2001; Gay, 2000; Giddings, 2001; Hale, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2000, 2006; Thompson, 2004; Webster, 2002). Several researchers have demonstrated that school achievement and motivation improve significantly when material and instruction align with the abilities, learning style, and perspectives of diverse learners (Albury, 1992; Boykin, 1994; Diamond & Moore 1995, Gay, 2000; Howard, 1998; Krater, Zeni, & Cason, 1994; Tatum, 2000). According to the NCES (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), among fourth grade American Indian and Alaska Native students, 76% had teachers who reported never having them study traditional American Indian and Alaska Native mathematics and only 2% had teachers who reported integrating American Indian or Alaska Native content or cultural standards when planning mathematics lessons. Among eighth grade American Indian and Alaska Native students, only 33% had teachers who reported integrating relevant culture and history into reading instruction at least once a month and 60% had teachers who reported never having them solve mathematics problems that are relevant to the Alaska Native community. A scant 7% of American Indian and Alaska Native eighth-graders reported knowing a lot about American Indian and Alaska Native systems of counting. Culturally responsive teaching employs the existing cultures, experiences, understandings, and perspectives of students. On a foundation laid by many scholars, Gay and Kirkland (2003) establish the necessity of a culturally relevant and responsive curriculum. They lay out several premises for their assertion: (a) multicultural education and educational equity and excellence are deeply interconnected; (b) teacher accountability involves being more self-conscious, critical, and analytical of one's own teaching beliefs and behaviors; and (c) teachers need to develop deeper knowledge and consciousness about what is to be taught, how, and to whom (Gay & Kirkland, 2003, p. 181). Research suggests that diverse students show higher Educational Poverties in Alaska 3 interest and learn more easily when they learn through their own cultural and experiential filters and when the school curriculum reflects their cultural background (Foster, 1995; Gay, 2000). The development and implementation of the “Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools” and “Guidelines for Respecting Cultural Knowledge” by the Assembly of Alaska Native Educators (1998) provide guidance to educators on how to integrate indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing into their curriculum and practices to make educational experiences more relevant and responsive. For Alaska Native students this means learning opportunities at school are experiential and interactive. It also means that learning opportunities focus on use of the senses, are narrative, and practiced in groups. Barnhardt and Kawagley (2006) describe Alaska Native ways of knowing as holistic with an emphasis on practical knowledge and skill application. The need for a relevant and place-based curriculum and assessment of curriculum is essential in indigenous settings because of the relationship between people and the land on which they live (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 1999; Semken & Morgan, 1997). Rios and Montecinos (2008) found ethnically diverse teachers are likely to employ culturally relevant instructional approaches, supporting Sleeter’s (1993) finding that ethnically diverse teachers tend to offer a curriculum that challenges the status quo more often than White teachers do. Further, Dilworth (1990) suggests ethnically diverse teachers enhance the academic and social experiences of diverse students because they share communication styles. When teachers understand, appreciate, and implement Alaska Native communal and hands-on learning styles, naturalistic intelligences, and strong oral story telling traditions learning for these students is improved (Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1999). Classroom and School Structures Meidl and Meidl (2011) ask, “Are all environments equally good for helping all students reach their learning potential and future academic achievement?” When diverse students come to school, they often need to adjust to vast differences in structures; differences between ‘how things work’ at home and ‘how things work’ at school (Gay, 2002). To succeed at school, diverse students may need new skills; skills that they often learn on their own (Gay, 2002; Garcia & Dominguez, 1997; Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley, 2001). These skills, characteristic of middle-class White culture, are the standard by which we judge children (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Nasir & Hand, 2006). As a result, diverse students, especially poor and minority students, are judged as inadequate (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Valencia et al., 2001). Physical environment, tone, and the quality of interactions among students and between teacher and students can have a tremendous impact on learning (Ware, 2006). Further, a growing body of literature supports the importance of caring teacher-student relationships to the academic success of diverse students (Chu, 2012). Culturally Responsive Teaching acknowledges and understands the importance of race, language, culture, and ethnicity in the classroom and enhances the kinds of environments and relationships described by Ware and Chu. Culturally responsive teaching practices can improve outcomes for diverse students (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Using the experiences and perspectives of diverse students are tools for impactful teaching (Gay, 2000; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The majority of teachers in Alaska are white, middle-class, primary English speakers, and are likely generally limited in their knowledge of or experience with diverse cultures (Sleeter, 2001; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005) and of Alaska Native cultures in particular. This cultural mismatch may make it difficult for teachers to connect with their students and make student learning relevant (Gay, 2000). Some education researchers, Irvine (2003) and Lee (2004) for instance, believe cultural mismatches between teachers and students contribute to the achievement gap. Gay and Kirkland (2003) tell us, “teachers knowing who they are as people, understanding the contexts in which they teach, and questioning their knowledge and assumptions are as important as the mastery of techniques for instructional effectiveness” (p. 181). Preparing culturally aware and responsive teachers for all of Alaska’s schools is essential to delivering a quality and equitable educational experience for Alaska’s students. This is particularly true for Alaska Native students (Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1999). The literature supports our belief that as the discussion on student achievement continues we must not only include the idea of educational poverties in this conversation, but also teachers’ responses to educational poverties. As a contribution to this dialogue, we examine deprivation of positive teacher attitudes, appropriate and relevant curriculums, and school structures that reflect childrens’ lived experiences as educational poverties. We survey and interview Alaskan teachers about their attitudes toward diversity and social justice, their beliefs about the suitability of materials and curriculums they use, and the instructional strategies they implement. Method Overview This study took a mixed methods approach. Both semi-structured interviews and standardized questionnaires provided data. Our intention with the interview questions was to create a context for a Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 4 conversation, the use of Standard English by Alaska Native students in the classroom, which is also a social justice issue. Our purpose in doing this was to both gain specific information on participants’ views on social justice and diversity, and to provide the opportunity for them to talk about other equity issues they might experience in their classrooms. We distributed standardized questionnaires concerning belief in and teaching for social justice to a larger sample of Alaska teachers. We hoped that by including a broader range of participants we could obtain a more descriptive view of the issue across a wider context. We also hoped more participants would help to reconcile the qualitative information gained from interviews. Context Alaska remains the nation’s most rural state, with more than half of all schools located in rural or rural- remote areas. Scattered throughout the vast 586,000 square miles of Alaska are 31 rural and remote school districts that comprise 53% of its schools and 40% of its population. These isolated school districts serve over 19,000 students, 14,000 of whom are Alaska Native. The majority of students in Alaska’s rural schools are poor and learning Standardized English. Participants All participants were teachers working in Alaska public schools. Eighteen female Alaska Native teachers enrolled in the School of Education’s Masters of Education Reading program at the University of Alaska Southeast participated in interviews via Elluminate audio conferences and completed online questionnaires. An additional sixty-three (52 female, 11 male) White teachers who were alumni of the University of Alaska Southeast’s Masters of Arts in Teaching program completed online questionnaires. Forty-six (38 female, 8 male) of the White teachers completed all items relating to key variables in this study. In sum, sixty-four participants completed the online questionnaires and were included in the results. Materials The measures used in this study were chosen because of the focus each scale places on attitudes and beliefs toward diversity and social justice, and because the scales are specifically designed to be used with teachers. We believe the scales, along with the interview, provide a better triangulation of the data than one or the other alone. The online questionnaire asked respondents to provide information on their gender, ethnicity, and included two beliefs about diversity scales, one social justice belief scale, and one differentiation scale. Pohan and Aguilar’s (2001) 25-item Professional Beliefs about Diversity Scale and 15-item Personal Beliefs about Diversity Scale draw on their view that diversity should be viewed as inclusive of historically marginalized socio- cultural groups (e.g., social class, gender, religion, non- English languages, and sexual orientation) rather than focusing primarily on race or ethnicity. Hence, these two diversity scales take a more contemporary approach to multicultural education. The Professional Beliefs about Diversity Scale measures belief about diversity within a professional, educational context. The Personal Beliefs about Diversity scale assesses beliefs about diversity in a general, personal context. Both measures use a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a neutral midpoint. The Cronbach’s alphas for each measure were .828 for the Professional Beliefs about Diversity Scale and .874 for The Personal Beliefs about Diversity Scale. The third online questionnaire was the 12-item Learning to Teach for Social Justice – Beliefs Scale (Ludlow, Enterline, & Cochran-Smith, 2008). According to Ludlow and colleagues, teaching for social justice is a “pedagogy intended to help teachers to understand the social and institutional inequities that are embedded in our society” (Ludlow et al., 2008, p. 210). The scale measures six components involved with teaching for social justice “…teachers’ knowledge, skill, and interpretive frameworks; teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and values; classroom practice and pedagogy; community participation; teachers’ learning in inquiry communities; and promoting pupils’ academic, social – emotional, and civic learning” (Ludlow et al., 2008, p. 195). Item analysis of scale items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .793 in this study. In the final part of the online questionnaire, which we call the Differentiation Scale, we ask participants to rate the following statements on a scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree: • The reading program or curriculum adopted by my school or district is appropriate for my students. • I have sufficient recreational reading material in my classroom. • I have freedom to deviate from the adopted reading curriculum when necessary. • I have choice in the instructional strategies I use to teach reading. • I have support in providing differentiated instruction for students who need it. • I have the freedom to differentiate all instruction when necessary. • I have sufficient and appropriate materials to differentiate instruction when needed. A principal component analysis of the Differentiation Scale produced two components that we call Resources and Choice. The Differentiation Resources component consists of the items; “The reading program or curriculum adopted by my school or district is appropriate for my students,” “I have sufficient recreational reading material in my classroom,” “I have Educational Poverties in Alaska 5 the freedom to differentiate all instruction when necessary,” and “I have sufficient and appropriate materials to differentiate instruction when needed.” The Differentiation Choice component consists of the items; “I have freedom to deviate from the adopted reading curriculum when necessary.”, “I have choice in the instructional strategies I use to teach reading,” and “I have support in providing differentiated instruction for students who need it.” The Cronbach’s alphas for each measure were .765 for the Differentiation Resources component and .763 for Differentiation Choice component. Procedure Within the first weeks of their programs, we interviewed Alaska Native participants in a web meeting session via Elluminate using the following open-ended questions: • What is your role as a teacher in Alaska? • What do you believe to be your greatest teaching challenge? • What are your feelings about the use of Standard English and teaching it in school? • Are there barriers that Alaska Native students face in acquiring Standard English literacy? • What is the best way to help Alaska Native students acquire Standard English literacy? We recorded the interviews in the web-meeting environment for later analysis. Following the interview, participants received a link to complete the online survey. All eighteen Alaska Native Village Teacher Grantees participants responded. The forty-six White teachers received an email link for the online survey. The emails for both groups asked for the teachers’ participation and the survey began with an informed consent form. Once participants provided their consent, instructions directed them to the beginning of the survey. Results Quantitative Data We subjected the variables measured via the online questionnaire to a correlation analysis to examine the relationships of the constructs as expressed by the teacher participants. The Personal Beliefs toward Diversity and Professional Beliefs toward Diversity scales were positively related to each other (r = .770, p. = .000) as to be expected. Further, the Teaching for Social Justice Beliefs Scale was positively related to both the Personal Beliefs Toward Diversity and Professional Beliefs Toward Diversity scales (r = .674, p. = .000; r = .697, p. = .000, respectively). Among the White teachers in the study, the Resources component of the Differentiation scale was negatively related to the Teaching for Social Justice Beliefs Scale (r = -.524, p. = .000). A near significant correlation was also observed between the Resources component of the Differentiation scale and Personal Beliefs Toward Diversity Scale among White teachers (r = -.289, p. = .052). These last two correlations suggest that participants with stronger attitudes toward social justice and stronger personal attitudes toward diversity were less satisfied with their resources to differentiate the school experience for groups and individuals. White participants demonstrated a significantly more positive attitude toward diversity (Personal Beliefs toward Diversity scale; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001) and social justice (Teaching for Social Justice Beliefs Scale; Ludlow et al., 2008) than did Alaska Native participants (t (61) = 3.408, p. = 001; t (61) = 3.243, p. = .002, respectively). Table 1 Correlations Among All Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Professional Beliefs about Diversity .77** .70** -.21 .18 2. Personal Beliefs about Diversity .67** -.29* .16 3. Social Justice Beliefs -.52** .05 4. Differentiation Resources .38** 5. Differentiation Choice Note. Professional Beliefs about Diversity, Personal Beliefs about Diversity, Social Justice Beliefs (N = 63); Differentiation Resources and Differentiation Choice (N = 46) and includes only non-Alaska Native participants. *p < .05 **p < .001 Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 6 Data from the differentiation scale are as follows: only 30.4% of respondents reported their reading program to be “very appropriate” for their students and 50% reported having “much freedom” to deviate from the reading curriculum, only 41.3 % reported having “somewhat sufficient” materials to do so. Sixty-five percent reported having “much freedom to differentiate instruction when necessary,” but only 34.8 % reported they had “some support” to do so and only 52.2% reported having “some materials” with which to differentiate. Qualitative Data Narratives demonstrate Alaska Native teachers share concerns about curriculum and school structures. These narratives also reveal participants’ attitudes toward diversity and social justice. There is awareness on the part of Alaska Native teachers that their teaching practice, rather by choice or by requirement, does not always meet the needs of their students. They share their opinions about why they cannot accomplish this and their frustration is clear. “There is a big gap between what is in the curriculum and what the students’ background knowledge is. I may be reading a story about the city that has the high rises. Most kids haven’t had the opportunity to travel even to Fairbanks. They haven't seen a building that was even three stories high.” “I am challenged to activate prior knowledge or make the reading material more relevant to the children, in rural Alaska especially.” “It is hard trying to connect students to the materials that they have because they are so irrelevant to our area, to rural Alaska. For instance, the past two stories that I’ve been working with the children, were about the elephant and the other about fireflies, which don’t exist where I’m at.” “I have always had lots of books, but the problem has been, and continues to be, having books that relate to the students at their understanding and still be relevant - most books that are culturally diverse are at a more difficult reading level - the mainstream basic books are still very mainstream culture! Also, it's hard to have easier books of high quality for my lower readers.” “I think it’s the culture of our people and just in general the way that our values, and beliefs, and knowledge play in a big part in how I perceive things. I think that’s probably the biggest barrier the misunderstanding between the Native way and the western ways.” While they felt they had the freedom to differentiate instruction, they report they lack the time, the resources, or the personnel support to do so. “I think it’s time more than everything else, especially with all the demands that are placed goals, and data bases, and stuff like that.” “I have a lot of engaging, interesting activities and lessons I’d like to do with my class. But, our school is mandated to do certain things during the reading block and then I have writing block and math block and during those times I can’t do anything but what is prescribed in our curriculum. So, time is one of my challenges.” “I'm still building a classroom library and learning the reading preferences and interests of my students. Unfortunately, I don't get much recreational reading time in class.” “I am expected to use the curriculum with fidelity; I have 30 minutes daily to differentiate appropriate lessons.” “The test scores are all that matter. Differentiation is my own burden.” These narrative results coincide with results from the differentiation scale. As to school structures, participants reported: “It’s very difficult to get my students to write in Standard English when they don’t speak in Standard English.” “I realize that some of our kids in the village were not only missing the academic stuff, but they were also missing the citizenship part. You know being a good person, being a helpful person.” “Many of my students had single parents or parents, who were going through a divorce, or their parents were married but their dad is in jail. You could just tell that their needs were so strong.” “I have a lot more parents that are young and have difficulties at home raising their children with all of the issues that I have to deal with in our society today.” A review of the literature led us to three broad areas that we proffer as educational poverties: inappropriate materials and instructional strategies, classroom and school structures that do not reflect and support the lived experiences of students and neutral or negative teacher attitudes toward diversity. We will discuss the totality of findings from this study in the context of each of these areas. Generally, about half of the participants in the survey report being at least “somewhat satisfied” or Educational Poverties in Alaska 7 “satisfied overall” with the appropriateness of their classroom materials, their freedom to use differentiation strategies, and their access to culturally rich and meaningful materials. However, half report the opposite. They report not having culturally relevant materials; they feel there is too great a focus on testing, and that they do not have the time and resources to differentiate for groups and individuals. This result supports the recent NCES (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012) findings and is in conflict with expected practice laid out in the Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools (Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1999). Not surprising is the finding that as a teacher’s propensity toward social justice and/or their openness to diversity increases, they are less satisfied with the curriculums and materials provided to them to use in instruction. Participants in this study view the issue of appropriate classroom and school structures as a ‘home- school culture mismatch’. Alaska Native teachers place the focus of the mismatch on the home and family with the expectation that children change rather than making changes in classroom and school structures. Overall, a stronger propensity in participants toward diversity and social justice led to less satisfaction with the materials, support, and structures of the school. In terms of the concept of educational poverties, this means that the more critically conscious a teacher is, the more they are aware of, and frustrated by, deprivations. Discussion Our results raise some important questions. White teacher participants demonstrated a significantly more positive attitude toward diversity and social justice than did Alaska Native participants. Their awareness and concern about what is not working for their students was clear. So why does this not translate to attitudes about social justice and diversity that are similar to White teachers? Do Alaska Native teachers understand diversity and social justice in a way that is different from how we measured it? The results also bring into question the use of instruments like the Pohan and Aguilar (2001) scales. These scales, meant to measure social justice, may be appropriate for use only with White participants, or at worst are innately Eurocentric and hegemonic. We wonder how Alaska Native teachers define social justice and diversity in their own words and plan to address this question in future interviews. Additionally, why did Alaska Native teachers, some of whose personal experiences reflect those of the families they reproached, place blame on the families rather than on the structures of the school? Perhaps what is revealed is the conflict these teachers experience; the “man of two cultures” described by Dehyle and Swisher (1997). When Alaska Natives become teachers, they assume a role imbued with White middle class norms. Some adjustment in norms would almost be required to have success in a teacher education program and to be successful as a teacher in a public school system. We also wonder if this phenomenon occurs among teachers of other culture groups. The Alaska Native teachers in this study articulate a critical perspective that demonstrates common values and goals as they pertain to education. However, we did learn that their definition of what social justice ‘looks like’ differs from what it ‘looks like’ to White teachers. As to power and privilege, they generally do not feel school structures should change to accommodate children and families, but rather that children should adapt to the existing school setting, and as a result be able to adapt to the larger White middle class dominated world. This pragmatic approach hints at a ‘get along to get ahead’ strategy. This attitude demonstrates that they are keenly aware of power and privilege. For the Alaska Native teachers in this study the way to escape domination is to be as adept as possible at living in the White middle class world. For them, an education that supports White middle class norms seems the obvious solution to the problem. They are also aware of and frustrated by diminished equality of opportunity to learn at their schools for Native students. While their ultimate goal is for these students to be successful in both their Native Culture and the dominant culture, they see the best way to get there is with curriculum and assessments that make sense for their students. This is particularly true for the teachers of young children. From the point of view of the Alaska Native teachers in this study, their goal of preparing students to succeed in both their Native and White cultures is made more difficult because of the educational deprivations in their classrooms. However, this work has implications for many settings, as teachers struggle to keep fidelity with established norms and goals while providing the most appropriate opportunities for their students. References Alaska Native Knowledge Network. (1999). Guidelines for preparing culturally responsive teachers for Alaska’s schools. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Albury, A. (1992). Social orientations, learning conditions, and learning outcomes among low income Black and White grade school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University, Washington, D.C. Anchorage School District. (2012). Retrieved July 10, 2012, from www.asdk12.org/aboutasd/ Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Asante, M. (1992). Afrocentric curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(4), 28–31. Assembly of Alaska Native Educators. (1998). Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools. Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 8 Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska Fairbanks. http://ankn.uaf.edu/Publications/standards.html Banks, J. A. (2001). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender role attitudes. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (1st ed., pp. 617–627). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practices. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, O. (1999). Education indigenous to place: Western science meets indigenous reality. In Gregory Smith and Dilafruz Williams (Eds.), Ecological Education in Action (pp. 117-140). New York: State University of New York Press. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2006). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23. Boykin, A. W. (1994). Afrocultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E. R. Hollins, J.E. King, and W.C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base. (p. 243-293). New York: State University of New York. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Washington D.C.: National Research Council. Hollins, J., King, E., & Hayman, B. C. (Eds.), Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base (pp. 243–256). Albany: State University of New York Press. Chu, S. (2012). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from Culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 38(3), 201-209. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931–975). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cornbleth, C., & Waugh, D. (1995). The great speckled bird: Multicultural politics and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Diamond, B. J., & Moore, M. A. (1995). Multicultural literacy: Mirroring the reality of the classroom. New York: Longman. Dilworth, M. E. (1990). Reading between the lines: Teachers and their racial/ethnic cultures. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. § 70 (1965). Howard, T. C. (1998). Pedagogical practices and ideological constructions of effective teachers of African American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In J.A. Banks, & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 570-581). New York: Macmillan. Garcia, S. B., & Dominguez, L. (1997). Cultural contexts that influence learning and academic performance. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 6(3), 621-655. Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to, create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150-168. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 75(6), 613-629. Gay, G. (2004). Multicultural curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 30– 49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42 (3). 181-187. Grant, C. A. (2003). An education guide to diversity in the classroom. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Giddings, G. (2001). Infusion of Afrocentric content into the school curriculum: Toward an effective movement. Journal of Black Studies, 31(4), 462– 482. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hale, J. (2001). Learning while black: Creating educational excellence for African American children. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Educational Poverties in Alaska 9 Erlbaum. Irvine-Jordan, J. (1991). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and prescriptions. New York: Praeger Press. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press. Krater, J., Zeni, J., & Cason, N. D. (1994). Mirror images: Teaching writing in black and white. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47- 68. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition (pp. 257-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Levinson, B. A. U. (2011). Introduction: Exploring critical social theories and education. In B.A. U. Levinson (ed.), Beyond Critique: Exploring Critical Social Theories and Education. (1-24). Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Lee, C. D. (2004). African American students and literacy. In D. Alvermann & D. Strickland (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for pre-adolescent and adolescent learners grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press. Ludlow, L. H., Enterline, S. E., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Learning to teach for social justice beliefs scale: An application of Rasch measurement principles. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling Development, 40. 194- 214. Meidl, T., & Meidl, C. (2011). Curriculum integration and adaptation: Individualizing pedagogy for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/v iew/579/148 Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture and learning. Review of Educational Research. 76(4), 449-475. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). National Indian education study 2011. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Pohan, C., & Aguilar, T. A. (2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159-182. Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Rilke, C. J., & Sharpe, K. L. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers’ dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84(3). 150-153. Sleeter, C. (1992). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. Sleeter, C. (2001). An analysis of the critiques of multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 81–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tatum, A. (2000). Breaking down barriers that disenfranchise African American adolescent readers in low-level tracks. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(1), 52–57. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards–based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, (Sept.). 7-11. Thompson, G. (2004). Through ebony eyes: What teachers need to know but are afraid to ask about African American students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Valencia, R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. E. (2001). Let's treat the cause, not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 321-326. Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching that supports a culture of achievement for African American students. Urban Education, 41(4), 427-456. Webster, J. (2002). Teaching through culture. Texas: Arte Publico Press. Zeichner, K. M. (2002). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 490–511. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers' characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 111-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 10 Article Citation Jones, A., & Salinas, C. (2013). Educational poverties in Alaska: Teachers’ perspectives. Current Issues in Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1081 Author Notes Dr. Anne Jones School of Education University of Alaska Southeast 11120 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801 anne.jones@uas.alaska.edu Dr. Anne Jones is Assistant Professor on the faculty of the University of Alaska, Southeast School of Education, focusing her research and teaching on developing pre-service teacher cultural consciousness and diversity education for social justice. Dr. Jones also serves as a Coordinator of the University of Alaska Southeast’s Elementary Master of Arts in Teaching Program for Juneau and the Southeast. Prior to her work in Alaska, Dr. Jones taught elementary and middle school students in California and English to adults in Bulgaria and Egypt. Dr. Charles Salinas School of Education University of Alaska Southeast 11120 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801 lee.salinas@uas.alaska.edu Dr. Charles Salinas earned a Ph.D. in Social/Personality Psychology from the University of California’s Riverside campus. His research interests include intergroup social attitudes and political reasoning. Dr. Salinas has taught at the American University in Bulgaria and in the California State system. Dr. Salinas is currently an adjunct instructor and serves as the Assessment Coordinator at the University of Alaska Southeast School of Education. Manuscript received: 09/17/2012 Revisions received: 01/18/2013 Accepted: 04/03/2013 Educational Poverties in Alaska 11 Volume 16, Number 1 April 26, 2013 ISSN 1099-839X Authors hold the copyright to articles published in Current Issues in Education. Requests to reprint CIE articles in other journals should be addressed to the author. Reprints should credit CIE as the original publisher and include the URL of the CIE publication. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article, provided CIE is credited and copies are not sold. Editorial Team Executive Editors Melinda A. Hollis Rory Schmitt Assistant Executive Editors Laura Busby Elizabeth Reyes Layout Editors Bonnie Mazza Elizabeth Reyes Recruitment Editor Hillary Andrelchik Copy Editor/Proofreader Lucinda Watson Authentications Editor Lisa Lacy Technical Consultant Andrew J. Thomas Section Editors Hillary Andrelchik Michelle Crowley Ayfer Gokalp Darlene Michelle Gonzales Courtney Hart David Isaac Hernandez-Saca Sultan Kilinc Younsu Kim Linda S. Krecker Carol Masser Bonnie Mazza Constantin Schreiber Faculty Advisors Dr. Gustavo E. Fischman Dr. Jeanne M. Powers